As with all reboots and remakes, these will be quickly forgotten, especially since they don't bring anything substantial and new to the table. All they did until now was Part 1: The Reboot, and Part 2: The Re-Use of a Previous Villain.

Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy, while having the same Part 1 and Part 2, left a deep footprint on the franchise, because what it offered had great impact and was truly fresh and new to the franchise. Cumberbatch's Khan in comparison to Montalban's Khan was in no way as exciting and fresh as Ledger's Joker in comparison to Nicholson's Joker or any previous Joker incarnation. Abrams' "lens flares because the future is so bright" approach is nowhere near as well done as Nolan's "realistic, down to earth take" on the Batman universe (and yes, I'm well aware of the controversy regarding the word "realism" in that context).

When people think of James Bond, they immediately think of Sean Connery, and then of Daniel Craig. Because Connery was the first and mostly considered the best, and then Craig's Bond movies left their mark as being special Bond films. People might also think of Roger Moore, but more because of the camp.

And my main problem with the Abramsverse is - I said that years ago about Part I and it hasn't changed with Part II - there is NOTHING in these films that needed the reboot of TOS. You could have told the story of Part I in the TNG universe, with the same style, and the same characters. A group of young hotshot cadets, one of them lost his father, the other one struggles with being between two worlds, Picard instead of Pike as mentor, a crazy Romulan with a black hole weapon, and Vulcan gets destroyed, Picard retires and hot shot cadet becomes hotshot Captain of the Enterprise-E. Part II, a section 31 conspiracy and an extremely angry spy with special abilities, eventually the hot shot cadet/captain sacrifices himself to save the Enterprise-E falling into the atmosphere, and the bad guy's Section 31 super secret battleship destroys half of San Francisco.

I don't feel any attachment to the names Kirk, Spock and McCoy, and they are played by different actors with entirely different takes on these characters anyway, so I don't see the reason. Because some guy in the marketing department thinks that Kirk == 100 million dollars box office and Unknown == 1 million dollars box office. Yeah right. How well they can actually pre-determine the box office performance of their films we already know.